Let us consider the general claims of the GRT. We begin with the myth "on the
necessity of the covariance". The unambiguous solution of any differential
equation is determined, except the form of the equation, also by specification
of the initial and/or boundary conditions. If they are not specified, then,
in the general case, the covariance either does not determine anything, or,
at changing the character of the solution, can even result in a physical
nonsense. If, however, the initial and/or boundary conditions are specified,
then with substitution of the solutions we obtain the identities, which will
remain to be identities in any case for any correct transformations.
Besides, for any solution it is possible to invent the equations, which will be
invariant with respect to some specified transformation, if we properly
interchange the initial and/or boundary conditions.

The analogies with subspaces are often used in the GRT; for example, a rolled
flat sheet is considered. However, the subspace cannot be considered
separately from the space as a whole. For example, in rolling a sheet into
a cylinder the researcher usually transfers, for convenience, into
the cylindrical coordinate system. However, this mathematical manipulation
does not influence at all the real three-dimensional space and the real
shortest distance.

The simplicity of postulates and their minimum quantity do not still
guarantee the correctness of the solution: even the proof of equivalence
of GRT solutions is a difficult problem. The number of prerequisites should
be, on one hand, sufficient for obtaining a correct unambiguous solution,
and, on the other hand, it should provide wide possibilities for choosing
mathematical methods of solution and comparison (the mathematics possesses
its own laws). The GRT, along with artificial complication of mathematical
procedures, has introduced, in fact, the additional number of
"hidden fitting parameters" (from metrical tensor components). Since the real
field and metrics are unknown in GRT and are subject to determination,
the result is simply fitted to necessary one with using a small amount
of really various experimental data (first we peeped at the "answer", then we
will believe with "a clever air" that it must be in the theory in just the
same manner).

Whereas in SRT though an attempt was made to confirm the constancy of
light speed experimentally and to prove the equality of intervals
theoretically, in GRT even such attempts have not been undertaken.
Since in GRT the integral is not meaningful in the general case,
since the result can depend on the path of integration, all integral quantities and
integral-involving derivations can have no sense.

A lot of questions cause us to doubt as to validity of GRT. If the general
covariance of equations is indispensable and unambiguous, then what could be the
limiting transition to classical equations, which are not generally covariant?
What is the sense of gravitation waves, if the notion of energy and its density
is not defined in GRT? Similarly (in the absence of the notion of energy), what
is meant in this case by the group velocity of light
and by the finiteness of a signal transmission rate?

The extent of the generality of conservation laws does not depend on the method of their
derivation (either by means of transformations from the physical laws or from
symmetries of the theory). The obtaining of integral quantities and the use of
integration over the surface can lead to different results in the case of motion
of the surface (for example, the result can depend on the order
of limiting transitions). The absence in GRT of the laws of conservation
of energy, momentum, angular momentum and center of masses, which have been
confirmed by numerous experiments and have "worked" for centuries,
cause serious doubts in GRT (following the principle of continuity and
eligibility of the progress of science). The GRT, however, has not yet
built up a reputation for itself in anything till now, except globalistic
claims on the principally unverifiable, by experiments, theory of the
evolution of the
Universe and some rather doubtful fittings under a scarce experimental base.
The following fact causes even more doubt in GRT: for the same system
(and only of "insular" type) some similarity of the notion of energy can
sometimes be introduced with using Killing's vector. However, only
linear coordinates should be used in this case, but not polar ones,
for example. The auxiliary mathematical means cannot influence, of course,
the essence of the same physical quantity. And, finally, the
non-localizability of energy and the possibility of its "spontaneous"
non-conservation even in the Universe scales (this is a barefaced
"perpetuum mobile") cause us to refuse from GRT completely and either
to revise the conception "from zero", or to use some other developing
approaches. Now we shall pass from general comments to more specific issues.